Force them into court for sentencing.

I doubt there is any court in the world, that sentences an accused who has been dragged into the court room and is screaming abuse at the court.
 
Nessie said:
I doubt there is any court in the world, that sentences an accused who has been dragged into the court room and is screaming abuse at the court.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, because in New Zealand, we have observed innocent men being sentenced with dignity.
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, I'm not understanding where all this sympathy for convicted people not appearing in court is coming from in this thread.

Now I don't know what kind of slack-arse laws you all have in your countries, but I can tell you none of that crap is tolerated here.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/...ting-yourself-criminal-high-court/sentencing/

"If you plead guilty to, or are found guilty of, an offence, a sentencing hearing will be scheduled and the court will adjourn your case until the date of this sentencing hearing. The court will decide whether you should be remanded on bail or kept in custody until the date of your sentencing hearing.

You will be notified of the date, time and place you are required to report for sentencing. It is important to note that you are required to attend. If you fail to do so, the court may issue a warrant for your arrest."​

We regard the judge as the absolute, unquestioned ruler in his court. His word is law and he must be obeyed (the only exception being an unlawful command). If he tells you that you will appear in his court at a specific time and date, and you don't turn up, then you are in contempt of court and the judge is well within his rights to issue a warrant for your arrest.

A judge will tell you, the convicted defendant, that you must come to his court for sentencing (time and date) and there is no choice in the matter for you. Attendance is not optional, it is mandatory. Should you fail to show, then the judge is well within the law to have the bailiff arrange for you to be physically brought to the court, in handcuffs if necessary, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary.

And this is how it should be!
Click to expand...

Why? If you are being sentenced you are already in custody.
In the UK a defendant can appear by video link anyway, physical presence isn't needed.
Refusing to appear is a very rare occurrence anyway.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, according to Planigale's post immediately before yours, judges already do have the power to enforce attendance, and it is sometimes used (though with perhaps predictable consequences).
Click to expand...

According to "The NewsAgents Podcast" the Judge can request the defendant be produced but the decision is made by the Governer of the prison they're being held in.
 
It's not always easy just getting a defendant to the court, even at Durham where the court backs on to the prison and forms part of the outer wall.
There's a tunnel from one in to the other to walk a prisoner directly in from the jail.
It doesn't get used now, prisoners are put in to transport Contracted to G4S and driven out of the prison and in to the courtyard of the court building and transferred to the cells.
G4S have the contract for all prisoner transport and court custody.
Sometimes transport isn't available and hearings are adjourned or cancelled as a defendant has a right to attend.
When it's a crown case a judge flies in by helicopter which lands in the park between the court and the river every morning. There is a big house attached to the court for accommodation but it's cheaper to fly the judge in and out rather than staff and maintain a judges house for the occasional trial.
 
Last edited:
If a defendant kicks off in the dock, it is usual for them to removed from the court, not brought in.
 
Nessie said:
If a defendant kicks off in the dock, it is usual for them to removed from the court, not brought in.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm asking what level of force should be used

Bound and gagged? tasered until they comply? Hit with sticks?
 
zooterkin said:
Where's the evidence that Labour tried to bring in legislation a year ago?
Click to expand...

I am quoting Starmer from the Independent:

UKUK Politics
Dominic Raab must ‘get on with it’ and force killers to appear in court, Sir Keir Starmer says
The Labour leader said the government could change the law ‘easily’ and could have solved the problem a year ago
Click to expand...
Independent

Drop him a line and ask him what he means if you don't believe him. Perhaps he is referring to the Police, Sentencing and Prisoners Bill passed last year, although that seems to have been about PC Harper, ex-PC Wayne Couzens/Sarah Everard & sexual harassment, and noisy protesters. If you are genuinely interested, do have a look through PMQ's Sunak vs Starmer and Commons debates.

In the meantime, the Shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed, Labour MP of Croydon North has brought up the issue via written questions. The amendments to the forthcoming Victims and Prisoners Bill was not accepted but since the Letby outcry, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has now agreed to include it in the Bill due to be passed any day now. Stable doors, horse and bolted spring to mind.

Question for Ministry of Justice
Rape: Sentencing
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of rapists failed to attend court for their sentencing in the latest period for which data is available.
Asked 6 January 2023
Answered 11 January 2023
By Edward Argar (Conservative, Charnwood)
Show answer
UIN 117605
Answered

Commons
Question for Ministry of Justice
Homicide: Sentencing
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of murderers failed to attend court for their sentencing in the latest period for which data is available.
Asked 6 January 2023
Answered 11 January 2023
By Edward Argar (Conservative, Charnwood)
Click to expand...

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4268/writtenquestions?page=12

In addition, Steve Reed in the Commons debate 15 May 2023, second reading argued as follows:

In recent months, victims of the most horrific crimes have faced the insult of convicted criminals refusing to turn up in court to face sentencing in person. We have called on the Government to act on that and they have repeatedly said that they will, yet they have done nothing while killers, rapists and terrorists pick and choose whether they turn up to face the consequences of their crimes. Just imagine how the families of Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena felt when the brutal men who had killed their loved ones refused to come to court to be sentenced. It is grossly offensive to victims and their families to let criminals have that hold over them at such a difficult and traumatic moment. It is disappointing that that is not part of the Bill, and I hope the Government will reconsider. If they will not act, the next Labour Government will. We will give judges the power to force offenders to stand in the dock, in open court, while they are sentenced, and we will do that because victims deserve nothing less.

With the Victims and Prisoners Bill finally coming before Parliament today, disappointingly there is still no Victims’ Commissioner in place. The Government have left the post vacant for six months now, and there is still no sign of a new appointment, which sends a message to victims about the Government’s intentions. I hope the new Secretary of State will be able to speed up that process. Whoever is eventually appointed, the Bill does nothing to strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, which, at the very least, should include the necessary powers to enforce the victims code in full and to lay an annual report before Parliament. That would help immensely in holding the Government to account and amplify victims’ voices. I hope this too is something the Government might reconsider in Committee.
Click to expand...
Hansard vol. 732

So Labour was urging legislation on this matter well before Letby's trial and it was ignored by the government. Until now.



Question asked and answered. Question closed.


You can have the last word.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Why? If you are being sentenced you are already in custody.
In the UK a defendant can appear by video link anyway, physical presence isn't needed.
Refusing to appear is a very rare occurrence anyway.
Click to expand...

Video link was refused by Letby. It is now becoming fashionable ever since defendants have discovered they do not have to attend. The judge addresses the defendant in his or her sentencing so of course the defendant needs to be there, especially where there are Victim Impact Statements being addressed to them.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
According to "The NewsAgents Podcast" the Judge can request the defendant be produced but the decision is made by the Governer of the prison they're being held in.
Click to expand...

The prison governor as a matter of course will produce the defendant, who is delivered by the Prison Escort Custody Service. Whilst the prisoner in the dock will be flanked by two of these escorts, they don't actually have the power to bring the prisoner to the dock from the cell. I think this is due to the fact of a court summons being a gentlemanly invitation throw back (= which of course means, 'you will attend').

An MP Conservative Buckland suggested that the judge could use powers of enactment. However, the judge still doesn't have that power. The power of enactment needs to be applied for by the prosecutor and then he or she would need to provide grounds for the application, with the defence arguing grounds against. That implies that the judge would even be amenable to agreeing to such a hearing. This is because it doesn't solve the problem of serious criminals in general taking advantage by cowering in their holding cell in contempt and defiance. In addition, Letby claimed to be suffering PTSD and spent her days in court clutching a couple of comfort blankets and demanding the court be cleared as she entered the dock. It would be seen to be discriminating against individual defendants. So what is needed is a law making attendance mandatory and then the onus will be on the defendant to plead absence on grounds of mental health or whatever they claim is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
That's why I'm asking what level of force should be used

Bound and gagged? tasered until they comply? Hit with sticks?
Click to expand...

It's nothing new. That is why serious offenders are flanked and outnumbered by security guards, who have batons and handcuffs.
 
Vixen said:
It's nothing new. That is why serious offenders are flanked and outnumbered by security guards, who have batons and handcuffs.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the very straightforward question put to you.
 
Vixen said:
It's nothing new. That is why serious offenders are flanked and outnumbered by security guards, who have batons and handcuffs.
Click to expand...

So how much force do you think should be used?

You still haven't answered.

Or do you not care as long as you don't have to know?
 
Vixen said:
Completely different system. The defendants sit with their lawyers and the appointed judges are a panel of highly qualified barristers. In a serious murder case, the prosecutor advises the judges of what the sentence should be. In those cases which are fairly complex (e.g., Anneli Auer, Lehto, etc) the sentencing will be reserved until the judges have had a chance to discuss it. These judges are always anonymous and not named in the press. Unlike the UK, it is not high theatre, with the snooty upper-class judge in horse hair wig and gown, with the lumpen prole defendant quaking and trembling before him as he bangs his gavel and declares:

"Norman Stanley Fletcher, you have pleaded guilty to the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence. You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years."

But actually I think the trial by twelve of your fellow peers is not bad as there is a high chance you will be acquitted, as juries tend to sympathize with the guy in the dock much to the chagrin of police and the CPS.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Andy_Ross said:
Why? If you are being sentenced you are already in custody.
In the UK a defendant can appear by video link anyway, physical presence isn't needed.
Refusing to appear is a very rare occurrence anyway.
Click to expand...
Even after conviction a defendant could be on bail.
 
Vixen said:
The same force it takes to read out an arrested person's charges at the police station.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll bite: Which is how much force...??

By the way, a court of law and a police station are definitely not the same venue, nor do they have similar operating procedures. So that comparison is spurious. But I suspect you know that. ;)
 
smartcooky said:
Sorry, I'm not understanding where all this sympathy for convicted people not appearing in court is coming from in this thread.

Now I don't know what kind of slack-arse laws you all have in your countries, but I can tell you none of that crap is tolerated here.

https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/...ting-yourself-criminal-high-court/sentencing/

"If you plead guilty to, or are found guilty of, an offence, a sentencing hearing will be scheduled and the court will adjourn your case until the date of this sentencing hearing. The court will decide whether you should be remanded on bail or kept in custody until the date of your sentencing hearing.

You will be notified of the date, time and place you are required to report for sentencing. It is important to note that you are required to attend. If you fail to do so, the court may issue a warrant for your arrest."​

We regard the judge as the absolute, unquestioned ruler in his court. His word is law and he must be obeyed (the only exception being an unlawful command). If he tells you that you will appear in his court at a specific time and date, and you don't turn up, then you are in contempt of court and the judge is well within his rights to issue a warrant for your arrest.

A judge will tell you, the convicted defendant, that you must come to his court for sentencing (time and date) and there is no choice in the matter for you. Attendance is not optional, it is mandatory. Should you fail to show, then the judge is well within the law to have the bailiff arrange for you to be physically brought to the court, in handcuffs if necessary, dragged kicking and screaming if necessary.

And this is how it should be!
Click to expand...

Why should it be like this? What problem, exactly, does this solve?

Does the sentence not take effect if the convict isn't present for its reading?
 
theprestige said:
Why should it be like this? What problem, exactly, does this solve?

Does the sentence not take effect if the convict isn't present for its reading?
Click to expand...

Here, the victim has rights. One of those rights is to make a victim impact statement and to have the convicted defendant face them personally in court to hear how their offending has impacted them.

I put the victim's right (to face the convicted defendant) over the convicted defendant's desire to cower in their cell. I always will, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
 
smartcooky said:
Here, the victim has rights. One of those rights is to make a victim impact statement and to have the convicted defendant face them personally in court to hear how their offending has impacted them.

I put the victim's right (to face the convicted defendant) over the convicted defendant's desire to cower in their cell. I always will, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Are you OK with the victim reading out their statement as the convicted person shouts abuse, claims their innocence or threatens them?
 
Vixen said:
The same force it takes to read out an arrested person's charges at the police station.
Click to expand...

Which means even passive resistance would be enough to prevent the convicted person being taken into the courtroom.
 
Nessie said:
Are you OK with the victim reading out their statement as the convicted person shouts abuse, claims their innocence or threatens them?
Click to expand...

If that happens, the convicted defendant needs to be shackled and gagged. I expect you and others to call this "barbaric". I have a better name for it... "consequences!"

And its happened before

https://www.insider.com/judge-order...-tape-for-repeated-courtroom-outbursts-2018-8

Courtgag-Williams.png


https://www.bakersfield.com/news/li...cle_4be2f7c7-b7e8-5366-b067-efd20da39d6a.html

Courtgag-Lightsey.png

‎
‎

‎
‎
 
Very civilised.

Why not just take him back down and carry on without him?
 
smartcooky said:
Here, the victim has rights. One of those rights is to make a victim impact statement and to have the convicted defendant face them personally in court to hear how their offending has impacted them.

I put the victim's right (to face the convicted defendant) over the convicted defendant's desire to cower in their cell. I always will, and nothing will convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...

Here, it's the defendant, that has the right to face their accuser.

I think victim impact statements are a bad idea generally, and a poisonous idea when they involve compulsory attendance by the accused. This seems more like revenge than justice, to me. I don't want a justice system that values making convicts suffer at the hands of their victims. I'm sorry that you do.

What about miscarriages of justice? Would you make an innocent man, wrongly convicted, sit in court while the victim lashes out at him in a grotesque display of grief and rage? Do you also think a convict should admit their guilt - even if they are innocent - as a condition of parole?

I don't think it should be the aim of our criminal justice system, to bring catharsis and closure to the victim. If it does that, great. But it probably won't, and we should not burden it with features intended for that purpose. If that's what the victim needs, that should be a matter between them and their priest or therapist. Not between them and the accused.

Victim impact statements, as you describe them, are a tool for making the accused suffer. This is bad justice. We should avoid it, not enable it.
 
theprestige said:
The accused being made to suffer at the hands of their (alleged) victims is not a system of justice I want any part of.
Click to expand...

Firstly, they are NOT "the accused" they are "the convicted". You may not distinguish between the two, but I do,

Secondly, in no way can having to listen while their victims tell them how their vile behavior has impacted them be classified as "suffering"
 
smartcooky said:
Firstly, they are NOT "the accused" they are "the convicted". You may not distinguish between the two, but I do,
Click to expand...
Wrongful convictions happen.

Secondly, in no way can having to listen while their victims tell them how their vile behavior has impacted them be classified as "suffering"
Click to expand...
"Cower in their cell" is your framing. You're the one who believes the alternative must be unpleasant for them. I'm agreeing with your classification. Making them suffer is the whole point of your policy.

ETA: And your rebuttal concedes the point anyway: If you thought making the accused suffer at the hands of their (alleged) victim was a good thing, you'd welcome it, not deny that it's happening.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Wrongful convictions happen.
Click to expand...

They do. Its irrelevant.

When in court, sit down, shut the **** up and speak only when the judge instructs you to. What is so hard about that?

theprestige said:
"Cower in their cell" is your framing.
Click to expand...

And an accurate one!


theprestige said:
You're the one who believes the alternative must be unpleasant for them.
Click to expand...

Being embarrassed by having to face your victim must cause sooooo much suffering. My heart bleeds for them :rolleyes: They should get some counseling, those poor misbegotten, suffering murderers.

theprestige said:
I'm agreeing with your classification. Making them suffer is the whole point of your policy.
Click to expand...

You agree that making them listen is not inflicting suffering, but then you claim my "policy" makes them suffer?
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
They do. Its irrelevant.

When in court, sit down, shut the **** up and speak only when the judge instructs you to. What is so hard about that?



And an accurate one!




Being embarrassed by having to face your victim must cause sooooo much suffering. My heart bleeds for them :rolleyes: They should get some counseling, those poor misbegotten, suffering murderers.



You agree that making them listen is not inflicting suffering, but then you claim my "policy" makes them suffer?

ETA: And your rebuttal concedes the point anyway: If you thought making the accused suffer at the hands of their (alleged) victim was a good thing, you'd welcome it, not deny that it's happening.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

You botched your quote tags.

Anyway, no, I don't agree with your pose. I agree with your language, which is that of imposing suffering on the accused. Something you don't even attempt to justify. What's the purpose, for you?
 
theprestige said:
You botched your quote tags.

Anyway, no, I don't agree with your pose. I agree with your language, which is that of imposing suffering on the accused. Something you don't even attempt to justify. What's the purpose, for you?
Click to expand...

I guess you and I have completely different definitions of "suffering". For this reason, we are never going to agree.

I do not classify have to be confronted and embarrassed by the victims of your own vile behavior as "suffering"
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
OK, I'll bite: Which is how much force...??

By the way, a court of law and a police station are definitely not the same venue, nor do they have similar operating procedures. So that comparison is spurious. But I suspect you know that. ;)
Click to expand...

One would hope the police and court escort officers are trained in subduing a distressed person. An aggressive person can be handcuffed. Obviously human rights need to be protected. One would hope they are trained to be courteous and respectful but firm, I wouldn't agree with gagging as that sounds dangerous and degrading.

IMV if something becomes law then most people simply comply with it. Imagine a group of people enjoy standing around drinking beer outside a pub. Tell them they can't and they will say, '**** off, it's a free country'.

A law is passed that they must not drink beer on the pavement. They won't rebel and riot, they will just take their beer inside. Ditto mandatory appearance at sentencing. I can understand why Lucy Letby baulked at appearing in court because I myself hate entering a room full of people all staring as you walk in. IMV this is likely just due to shyness or nerves. You can be a despicable killer of babies yet still have normal fears. A law takes it out of her hands and it is just a case of the escort guards saying, 'This way, Ms. Letby', and she would have just complied. It was knowing she didn't have to that gave her the right to refuse.
 
theprestige said:
Here, it's the defendant, that has the right to face their accuser.

I think victim impact statements are a bad idea generally, and a poisonous idea when they involve compulsory attendance by the accused. This seems more like revenge than justice, to me. I don't want a justice system that values making convicts suffer at the hands of their victims. I'm sorry that you do.

What about miscarriages of justice? Would you make an innocent man, wrongly convicted, sit in court while the victim lashes out at him in a grotesque display of grief and rage? Do you also think a convict should admit their guilt - even if they are innocent - as a condition of parole?

I don't think it should be the aim of our criminal justice system, to bring catharsis and closure to the victim. If it does that, great. But it probably won't, and we should not burden it with features intended for that purpose. If that's what the victim needs, that should be a matter between them and their priest or therapist. Not between them and the accused.

Victim impact statements, as you describe them, are a tool for making the accused suffer. This is bad justice. We should avoid it, not enable it.
Click to expand...


A miscarriage of justice is a completely different issue from a sentencing by a judge. A judge sentencing is simply carrying out legal protocol following on from the jury's direction of a guilty verdict.

The time and place to provide evidence of your innocence or miscarriage of justice is during your trial. If the process is botched you can appeal on a point of law and win. If you are innocent, just look the judge in the eye knowing that soon you will be in the appeal court overturning this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom